Obama immigration push bad news for both parties?

This topic will have great implications for both parties leading up to the 2016 presidential election. Republicans will be trying to avoid appearing too hard on the issue, which could alienate some voters. Democrats, on the other hand, wish to avoid watching President Obama’s approval dip deeper if his decision to act unilaterally on immigration proves to be unpopular with voters.

It didn’t take long for the 2016 election to reach its first major crossroads. As early as this week, President Obama is expected to ignore the wishes of congressional Republicans and announce that he will unilaterally defer deportations for millions of undocumented immigrants.

When he does, Republicans and Democrats alike should worry he just made life harder for their next presidential nominees. Few decisions, even from the president, influence elections more than 23 months away, but Obama’s immigration maneuver accomplishes the rare feat of exposing both parties to what should be their biggest cause for concern in the 2016 election.

Seems that movement from the President could come at any time. I’m guessing Democrats would like to move on this issue quickly to get it off the minds of many voters by the time 2016 rolls around. Furthermore, if the President can avoid giving Republicans any credit on the issue, it will be a political success from the White House’s point of view.

Nate Ashworth is the Founder and Editor-In-Chief of Election Central. He's been blogging elections and politics for almost a decade. He started covering the 2008 Presidential Election which turned into a full-time political blog in 2012 and 2016.

22 COMMENTS

As I said elsewhere, the American public likes a president who acts. So I don’t think it will hurt his popularity–how much lower could it go? In the past, Clinton had to insist that he was not “Irrelevant,” and GHW
Bush had to say, “I am NOT a wimp.” In this action, Obama is saying,
“go ahead, make my day.”

I think it’s a good tactical move. Republicans ran on the message that they wanted to “work with the president.” But after the election, the ONLY on things they listed were things he doesn’t want. It would have been good if they picked at least ONE issue on which they would compromise.

That being the case, Obama anticipates that the new Congress will come in with an agenda, and it will be up to him to compromise with them. By acting before they come in, it will be up to them to prove that they want to “work with him.”

I’m not saying it was a good thing. I’m just saying it was a smart tactical move. He would enumerate a full list of programs in advance, if he were smart.

But.. he had full control of Congress from 2008 to 2010.. and he’s had plenty of time to act unilaterally and he has chosen not to.

Why now? He’s been rebuked at the ballot box only a week ago, you think voters are trying to encourage him to simply act without congress? He didn’t need a GOP majority in the senate to do that or be decisive 6 months ago, a year ago, 2 years ago on this issue or any issue.

Nate: But that’s the point. I’m not defending him. And I’m not saying he wanted immigration reform. He has deported more people than any other president, after all. You’re looking at this as if it was about issues. It’s not. It’s about power and control.

The reason he didn’t act over the past year is that his party put him under house arrest. I”m sure he is thinking that if he had kicked butt, his party would have, too. The Democrats’ interpretation of the loss was that they didn’t get their stuff passed, and “the people” punished them for it.

And, personally, I think his numbers are down because the public perception is that he is not decisive enough. Face it, for all the talk of Kumbaya, Republicans were not going to give an inch in compromise, anyway, so what does he have to lose?

The President doesn’t need his phone all he needs is his pen to grant a pardon to every illegal alien right this very minute without Congress approval. It would be covered under his authority under Article II power.

It has been claimed that illegal immigration is beyond the Presidents pardon power because it is a civil wrong not a criminal offense (albeit misdemeanor). The Constitution enables a president to pardon it does not say any criminal offenses needed to have been done. We can assume that the court system being loaded with left wing judges will see it that way also. In addition the Border Patrol is a federal jurisdiction thus giving it federal authority and thus covered under the pardon act if you really are looking at criminal charges. Besides the point of a pardon wouldn’t be to give lawful status to illegal aliens ,something no president can do but to pave the way for these same left wing courts to do just that. Along with voting rights, welfare etc. and etc.

The president has no concern about what has just happened at the latest election he is only concerned with Barack Obama and fundamentally changing America. If he had any concern do you really believe he would have be as arrogant toward members of his own party by saying they are running on his policies and other recent tactics that led to members of his own party shunning him? Issuing Executive Orders while quite legal have nothing to do with the number issued compared to other Presidents but with the consequences of such as when they are used to upsurp the powers of other branches of government or for simply political purposes. President Obama however has even gone past these limits with Executive Orders by amending Obamacare over 30 times without needed Congressional approval.

The GOP meanwhile is just as stubborn (and stupid) by announcing ahead of time “What they won’t do”. This includes closing the government, filing bogus law suits to appease the right before an election, and denouncing impeachment proceedings. Here is their opportunity to stand tall and show the country leadership qualities. But they got what they want by coercing a voter majority in both Houses not through announcing any thing they will do if elected but using the same Obama scare tactics they have been using since 2008. If they refuse to take any action, as is obviously their intention the American public have no one to blame but themselves. It isn’t like there wasn’t a precedent of past ineptness on the part of the GOP/RNC.

This is the same mistake or should I say mindless rhetoric the secular left spouts when they ask “If there is a God why does he let bad things happen”. God might have made us in his image but didn’t give us the infallibility he possesses. We are mortals prone to mistakes, envy, greed, corruption and all the other faults mortal man makes. God hasn’t forsaken us he has made man so that he commits faults and he grants forgiveness.

You know at times your post can make some sense but most times you rely on remarks that when given any thought are exposed for the jibberish they actually are such as your Colt remark above. Try thinking thoughts through you may gain more respect !

I do think it was a tactical error for the GOP to say they would only “work with” Obama to pass things they want. It should have been a “honeymoon” moment. When you’re the one with all the power, you can afford to appear magnanimous.

They could have appeared to be “the adult ones,” and since they control both houses, they could have thrown a few softballs to his desk, so it would appear that we really are interested in accomplishing something “together.”

I refer you to a New York Times article entitled “The Next Four Years” by David Brooks only days before (17th January 2013) President Obama took the oath of office for his second term. Read it and then decide just how much of a magnanimous “honeymoon” the Left was going to give republicans. At the time this “lets deliver the death blow” idea wasn’t a rogue column but the general feeling on the left.

Goethe;
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “the GOP remembers what that got them before.” This time they have both Houses of Congress so that they can not be rebuked and a republican president followed President Clinton. I see it as a matter of the republican leadership never had any intention of challenging the President.

The Clinton impeachment was a disaster for the GOP. It made Bill popular again–and made Hillary a sympathetic character. It led to a GAIN in seats in the 6th year of Clinton’s presidency, when nearly all presidents lose seats. It also cost Gingrich his leadership role. And, of course, the GOP lost the popular vote in 2000–hardly a repudiation of Clinton.

Democrats would have won that election if Gore had accepted the popularity of the Clinton-Gore years. Instead, he repudiated Clinton, and wouldn’t let him campaign. So the public chose between a pompous guy running AGAINST Clinton or a funny Texan who couldn’t talk straight.

Besides, EVERY president could be impeached, justifiably, but the public sees it as wasting time on gamesmanship. HOWEVER, a lawsuit would be seen as a legal issue, and would not have the same negative consequences, IMHO.

And, yeah, I figured you wouldn’t appreciate the compliment, but your above posts (and this latest one, to a lesser degree) showed honest pondering/exploration, and not knee-jerk party-line propaganda. Both parties are really gangs, not unlike those in bad neighborhoods–seeking to gain and hold power and control.

Issues are just window dressing for these gangs–to rationalize their power grabs. They don’t really want to solve problems, since problems are what get them the (votes) power they want.

As I noted IMHO the results of the Clinton impeachment proceedings wasn’t as bad as was expected. Speaker Gingrich was losing favor and control of the republican party soon after the 1994 mid-terms and the impeachment was simply the final nail. What would have happened in the 2000 election is up for speculation because the country was so evenly divided we can’t say for sure what would have panned out. This partisanship also was a major factor in why the President wasn’t impeached and the gain in seats.
Using the logic that any President could justifiably be impeached and this is gamesmanship is not only wrong but taking the easy way out of any intelligent thought that I would have expected from Surfisher but not from you. It is the same childish excuse we heard when the President was found out to be lying about having sex. “Well he wasn’t the only one who did it”. That excuse didn’t cut it as legitimate when we were kids telling our parents and it won’t cut it now as adults. Impeachment is a political remedy (removal from office) not a legal one (removal of liberty after criminal conviction). This is why Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers #65 describes it as “political in nature as a proceeding from misconduct or abuse of power.” In order to start impeachment proceedings you must have a good case against the President. You simply can’t bring proceedings up because you don’t agree with his policies. high Crimes and misdemeanors in the Constitution refers to abuse of power that violates the Presidents oath to the people, the constitutional system and the faithful execution of the laws. You worried in one of your previous post about circumscribing the powers of the Executive Branch well that is exactly what the President is doing to Congress thus impeachment hearing are justified.

Obama to defy Americans, Congress and the new Senate, by using his pen again in signing his Rejected by the Voters executive order (giving amnesty to ~12,000,000 law-breaking foreigners that are illegally on our soil, thus defacto criminals) on Thanksgiving (my sources indicate he’ll do this on Thanksgiving weekend — when we are too busy gobbling up turkey, to notice what a turkey he is)!